Secondary menu

You are here

Blogs

Picking up on my blog of a few days ago about homeowners putting security systems signs in front of their house when they don't have a security system, here's another story along the same lines. It's from the Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune and it says that you can get Brink's and ADT signs on eBay.
It also gives information and assessments of other faux security measures such as fake cameras and an interesting product that simulates the light of a TV in a room. (Did you know that many burglars are afraid of TVs?)
I couldn't find any ADT or Brink's signs for sale on eBay, but I did find one for an APX sign
Here's a posting for a "Security home camera warning signs 4 ADT'L stickersÃ¢â‚¬â€but that's not ADT, that's an abbreviation for "additional."
Here's my advice. If you want to go faux, you should do it right. And I've got good news for you. You can purchase the very same fake security stickers we had the Entwistle house when I was growing up. Click here to "buy it now!" There are 20 available and they're only $2 a piece. Attractive too!

Picking up on my blog of a few days ago about homeowners putting security systems signs in front of their house when they don't have a security system, here's another story along the same lines. It's from the Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune and it says that you can get Brink's and ADT signs on eBay.
It also gives information and assessments of other faux security measures such as fake cameras and an interesting product that simulates the light of a TV in a room. (Did you know that many burglars are afraid of TVs?)
I couldn't find any ADT or Brink's signs for sale on eBay, but I did find one for an APX sign
Here's a posting for a "Security home camera warning signs 4 ADT'L stickersÃ¢â‚¬â€but that's not ADT, that's an abbreviation for "additional."
Here's my advice. If you want to go faux, you should do it right. And I've got good news for you. You can purchase the very same fake security stickers we had the Entwistle house when I was growing up. Click here to "buy it now!" There are 20 available and they're only $2 a piece. Attractive too!

Night-vision manufacturer Vumii picked up a nice accolade today when the Wall Street Journal tabbed the company for its 2008 Technology Innovation Awards.
Basically, the WSJ employs a panel of judges, mostly entrepreneur and inventor types, to evaluate new technology entries in a bunch of different categories, and picks a "winner" in each of those categories, physical security being one. Of all the new stuff out there in physical security - easy-to-configure analytics, browser-based control of alarms systems, video fire detection, wide-reaching PSIM software - Vumii took the prize. Of course, there's no way to know who entered or even knew about the contest (and I generally don't go in for these kinds of awards), but the WSJ certainly has no stake in the physical security market, you know the award wasn't paid for, and it's interesting insight into what non-industry observers think is valuable in our market.
Here's what they had to say:
Vumii Inc. was selected in this category for developing a night-vision camera technology that uses a near-infrared laser to illuminate an area.
Most long-distance night-vision cameras "see" in the dark by capturing thermal infrared rays. But these cameras can't read writing or recognize faces, and they can't see through glass. Atlanta-based Vumii's Discoverii technology gets its illumination from an invisible laser beam that produces a high-resolution image that can be captured by standard video equipment.
Introduced in 2006, the equipment is being used to monitor a nuclear power plant in Japan and a water system in Pennsylvania, among other uses.
You'll remember I was pretty geeked about this technology back at ISC West.
Still, I don't actually think the Discoverii part of Vumii is the coolest. The software the company offers, Sensorii, which offers a panoramic view of the scene you're watching and places what you're looking at, or allows you to create automated night-vision video tours, is what really makes the technology somewhat practical.
Good for WSJ for making an interesting choice. If anyone would have picked something else, I'd like to hear what you would have picked. Obviously, another night vision company, NoblePeak, has been winning lots of show awards within the industry. Wonder if they entered this contest.

Tired of all the depressing economic news? Here's some feel-good news about an alarm company volunteering to help out victims of Hurricane Ike in Galveston, Texas.
Apx COO Alex Dunn said: "Our employees expressed a desire to help the hurricane victims, and so we set up a plan to make it happen. While many are concentrating on the financial headlines that are dominating the news, there are people affected by Hurricane Ike who don't have the most basic things: power, phone, or a safe place to live. We came to discover that making a small difference is how you make a big difference. We hope that other people will remember the victims as well."

I'm going to try to look at the presidential election fairly often over the next month for clues about how each candidate will perform for the security industry. There is, on one hand, the simple fact of how they'll perform for the economy in general, and small businesses especially, since the vast majority of security companies are simply small businesses trying to get by in what are increasingly uncertain economic times.
But what of the candidates' views on actually keeping people safe? Sure, from terrorism and the like, but also from crime in general.
I think this article from the Arizona Republic raises some interesting points about how security has been pushed to the side as the economy dominates presidential discussion.
The candidates hardly discussed national and domestic security in Friday's debate. Why?
Recent polls suggest that voters have relegated terrorism to a secondary concern, though it remains a major unresolved issue for the next president. Congressional and non-partisan reports lay out a list of 9/11 Commission mandates that remain unfinished, such as tighter transit security to better efforts to interdict weapons of mass destruction.
The two candidates have staked out similar positions on bolstering border security, hunting Osama Bin Laden and closing Guantanamo Bay prison.
But in the dozen times the two senators cast votes together on homeland-security bills, they agreed only twice.
So how are voters supposed to figure out where they really differ?
Well, you can try the candidates' web sites.
For McCain, go here, here, here, and here. I'm not 100 percent sure what the difference between "National Security" and "Homeland Security" is, but maybe you can figure it out.
For Obama, go here, here, and here. It looks like "Defense" is for fighting overseas and "Homeland Security" is more defending the borders, but there's some bleed. Also, Iraq is separated out for Obama.
But if you read all of that, you'll see scant mention of the private security industry.
I think this is a well-made point:
Domestically, "we are obsessing about securing the border, but there are lots of other things out there to be concerned about: protecting the food supply, water supply, nuclear plants, natural-gas supplies and so on," said Courtney Banks, chief executive officer of National Security Analysis Worldwide.
Is anyone reaching out to the security industry? The NBFAA, especially, has a presence on Capitol Hill, but despite their lobbying efforts, there's never much of a mention at all of the private security industry in the public discourse. Everyone's just talking about military and government efforts, but there's no way publicly funded efforts can keep everything safe. It's up to private water companies to protect their water supplies, up to private food manufacturers to make sure their products aren't tainted, up to private natural-gas facilities to make sure their plants aren't attacked and destroyed.
CFATS and other government regulations dictate how some of these places must secure themselves, but they are largely unfunded mandates and it's up to the private security industry to figure out how to solve the problems as efficiently as possible. Has anyone suggested tax breaks for private businesses who invest in security? Has any candidate suggested a nationwide private information gathering service, a linking of IP-based surveillance systems? I haven't heard it if they have. Please send anything you see along and I'll take a look and make it widely available.

Much of today's discussion was dominated by standards, especially video standards and the seemingly competing PSIA and Sony-Axis-Bosch video standards groups. I say seemingly because there's a lot that can be misconstrued in the "standards" discussion.
First and foremost, it's not even standards we're talking about. As has been noted often today, anything either group releases will really just be a specification. Without the verification of a standards body like SIA or ANSI, they don't quite reach the level of "standards," even if people talk about the specifications they hope to release in that way.
Second, there's the perception on the show floor that the two groups are competing, and that both groups are competing with SIA in some way, but most conversations I've had with the interested players have seemed to indicate that everyone would ideally like to play together. As evidence, SIA treasurer Rob Hile was named PSIA chairman today, and as for creating a good relationship with SIA, he said today, "I'm personally going to take that on my shoulders."
Are standards a big deal anyway? The are and they aren't. On one hand, just about every major camera company works with every major video management software company, so what's the big deal? Well, both David Bunzel, an originator of the PSIA, and Fredrik Nilsson, general manager at Axis, made the point that software makers like Milestone, Genetec, OnSSI, etc., spend way too much time and energy integrating cameras. What if they never had to spend that money again? Wouldn't that allow those companies to spend much more time and energy on improving functionality and adding features? Seems like a no brainer.
So, no, the industry isn't being dragged down by a lack of standards, but, yes, the industry could be made much more efficient with a solid group of interoperability standards.
I'll have more on this in the next paper.

Apparently, faux security signs are back in vogue. A news outlet near Norfolk, Va., randomly checked seven homes that had security signs, and found out that four of the homes didn't have the security system to go along with the sign.
One woman said she got the sign from her brother 15 years before. At leastÃ¢â‚¬â€judging by the photo in the story anywayÃ¢â‚¬â€her sign is for an authentic security company (the one and only ADT).
Faux security signs were fashionable at my house when I was growing up way back in the 1970s, but we didn't have a sign from a real security company. Here's what happened: Our house was broken into and the thief stole a TV or two, and not much else. (We were away, and I think there was about a week's worth of Boston Globes piled up on the front walk, no lights on in the house, and other tell-tale signs announcing that the Entwistles were on vacation.)
To increase security, my thrifty father sent away for these little green stickers that had lightening rod decorations and proclaimed: "Warning! This home protected by Electronic Automatic Alarm System." I think he thought they looked pretty fake, but we put them on all of our doors and a bunch of windows.
There were other new security measures implemented as well after the break-in: For added protection when we went away, my father used to cover up the TV in our family roomÃ¢â‚¬â€which was plainly visible through sliding glass doorsÃ¢â‚¬â€ with newspapers. (This prompted one of my brothers to put a sign on the newspaper-covered television set--also visible from the glass doors-- that said ,"This is not a TV!")
The newspapers and accompanying sign became a security tradition in my family when we went away. Maybe the stickers and newspapers deterred criminal activity; Maybe thieves just never showed up again. At any rate: We were never broken into again.

Okay, some people prefer to suspend disbelief more than I do. The ghost-in-the-gym story has made it to Australia.
I love how every story about this makes sure to mention that bugs, dust, and headlights have been ruled out. Those, of course, are the only possibilities. If it's none of those things, it must be a ghost. Clearly.

If this were a Sherlock Holmes story, it might be "The Case of the Floating Orb."
Let's use our deductive powers:
Unexplained Orb Floating Around Dumbbells Baffles Gym Owners
Security Company Rules Out Bug, Dust, Car Lights
Why do I get the feeling that this story involves lots and lots of "dumbells?"
OVERLAND PARK, Kan. -- A white orb repeatedly seen on motion-detecting cameras inside a Kansas gym has baffled owners and a security company.
Yes, this is another one of those stories involving "a security company." They name the gym, but not the security company. Why is that?
Security cams at the Overland Park gym videotaped the image hovering and lingering around dumbbells between 2 a.m. and 4:30 a.m.
"Cams." That's a technical term.
The motion-detecting system has been activated nine times at the business.
By these same orbs? Always at the same time? It's unclear.
Gym owner Kim Peterson said she's sure there is a logical explanation but her security company is unable to explain the events. Representatives from the security company said the system is activated by motion but a bug would not activate the model of cameras used at the gym. They also ruled out dust or headlights passing by from outside the gym.
"I called my security company and said, 'Is there a lightbulb going out or do I need to get up and clean the lens?'" Peterson said. "They reviewed it and said, 'We have no idea what that is.'"
The security representative said 600 other clients have the same system and had problems.
I, Sherlock Holmes, will now solve this mystery: The system ... is CRAPPY! Now I know why the security company didn't want to be named. If this situation were unusual, maybe it would be interesting. But 600 other clients are having similar problems? Shouldn't that have been a bit higher up in this non-story?
[[ Edit: Okay, someone pointed out another version of this story where the above sentence is "600 other clients have the same system but none of them have ever recorded a mystery." That version also contains camera being made plural as "camera's" and a fundamental lack of understanding about comma use, but is much more clear about this: "It leaves the frame, then comes back and kicked the motion sensors into action a total of 9 times between 2 and 4:30 in the morning." Interesting that two stories can be so similar and so different, no? ]]
This could also be the solution to the mystery, though:
"My 8-year-old said, 'Maybe Grandpa is just making sure you are OK in your new business, mom,'" Peterson said.
"It could be a spirit," a woman at the gym said. "Nothing is impossible."
"Woman at the gym" makes a good argument. Holmes is now going with this conclusion: It's the ghost of Captain Lou Albano!
(Huh? What's that? Lou Albano's not dead? Hmmm. Back to the drawing board.)

Cisco's increasing activity in the physical security space is, predictably, drawing the attention of traditional IT media. Sometimes, they have something interesting to offer on a story, sometimes they muddy the waters.
With this story, I think they muddy the waters.
The actual content of the IT World Canada story is mostly fine, it's the title that's dead wrong:
New standard to unite physical and IT security
Wowzer! That would be awesome!
But they're just talking about the PSIA (see discussion below and details here) and their device discovery API. How does something that lets video cameras integrate with video management systems "unite physical and IT security"? It doesn't, and I suspect the author of the story knows that, since it's not mentioned in the story at all, and some editor just slapped on an incendiary headline. Oh well. That'll happen.
Still, this is the kind of confusion that can be created when industries that have long been separate start to come together, and it's important to define terminology and nomenclature early. By my definition, IT security is making sure no one messes with your network - firewalls, passwords, content filtering, network access, etc. There's no way that Cisco's cameras easily integrating with Genetec's video management software is going to have anything to do with someone hacking your network and stealing your data (or, for that matter, making sure someone doesn't hack your network and look through your cameras).
Also, by the way, even the PSIA will tell you that what they've got to offer is a specification, and not a standard. There's a difference. Jeez.